Search Results for "penalty assessment"

531 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 531 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 153C of Income Tax Act for Non-Supply of Satisfaction Note. Failure to Provide Satisfaction Note Recorded by the Assessing Officer Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Renders the Notice Invalid.

The petitioner, Nirma Limited, received funds from Siddhi Vinayak Cement Private Limited during Financial Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 by way of share app...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Rejection of Declaration under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The court quashed reassessment and prosecution notices under Section 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that valid declaration under the Scheme grants immunity.

The petitioners, Umesh D. Ganore and Mangesh D. Ganore, filed two writ petitions challenging the decision of the Revenue Authority in not accepting th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Challenge to Property Tax Demands on Mobile Towers in Part. Conservancy Tax, Penalty, and Shasti on Illegal Constructions Quashed as Invalid Under Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act.

The petitioners, Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. and another, carry on business of providing infrastructure services including installation and ma...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Settlement Commission Order Under Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act — No Jurisdictional Error Found in Rejecting Settlement Application for Non-Disclosure of Full Income.

The petitioner, Major Metals Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 30 December 2010 passed by t...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...